Book Reviews – Aaron Simmshttp://aaronsimms.com
Writer, Author, PastorSun, 16 Dec 2018 15:57:48 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9Confessions of St. Augustinehttp://aaronsimms.com/confessions-of-st-augustine/
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:34:14 +0000http://aaronsimms.com/?p=1572Many years ago, I first read St. Augustine’s Confessions, and it had a profound impact on me (I’ll get to why in a moment). I’ve since read it a few times, even listening to it in audiobook format. For anyone interested in the Christian faith, I recommend reading it. Before I get into why, let me first summarize St. Augustine’s life …

]]>Many years ago, I first read St. Augustine’s Confessions, and it had a profound impact on me (I’ll get to why in a moment). I’ve since read it a few times, even listening to it in audiobook format. For anyone interested in the Christian faith, I recommend reading it. Before I get into why, let me first summarize St. Augustine’s life and this book.

St. Augustine lived in the late fourth century AD and into the early fifth century (November 12, 354 to August 28, 430). He was born in Tagaste, a town in the Roman province of Numidia. He is best known for serving as the Christian bishop of Hippo, also in North Africa. However, he was not always a bishop, nor was he always a Christian. His book Confessions tells his story of how he was brought to the Christian faith.

Augustine wrote this book in the form of an extended conversation (monologue, actually) with God. It is basically Augustine’s life story as told by him to God. He casts his life, though, within the context of his struggle with God. Beginning with his birth, he recounts his whole life and how he has struggled to come to terms with who God is and what plans He has in store for him.

As a child, Augustine’s mother was a Christian, but his father was not. I expect that this is a similar situation for many in our own time, where one or both parents are not a believer; this trend is likely to continue, at least in the United States and Europe. Augustine took after his father and did not become a Christian, to the anguish of his mother. Instead, he studied philosophy and then became a teacher of rhetoric. These were profitable fields to enter in his day.

Augustine eventually fell in with a group called the Manichees. This was a religion that had its origins in the East and postulated the existence of a good god and an evil god locked in combat. The good God was the creator of the spiritual world, while the evil god was the creator of the material world. The basic belief of the Manichees was that a person had to transcend the material world in order to reach spiritual enlightenment. It was basically a Gnostic type of religion, because it was based on securing some sort of secret “knowledge” in order to be “saved” from the material world by becoming more “spiritual.”

Augustine followed the teachings of the Manichees for a time, until he met one of their leaders, Faustus by name. Faustus was supposed to be the most pre-eminent and intelligent among the sect. However, Augustine was disappointed when he met him. He found that the man had none of the answers to Augustine’s questions and was simply a talker, spouting off vain sayings.

In connection with his disappointment with the Manichees, Augustine writes what I consider to be one of the best passages of the Confessions. He says:

From now on I began to prefer the Catholic teaching. The Church demanded that certain things should be believed even though they could not be proved, for if they could be proved, not all men could understand the proof, and some could not be proved at all. I thought that the Church was entirely honest in this and far less pretentious than the Manichees, who laughed at people who took things on faith, made rash promises of scientific knowledge, and then put forward a whole system of preposterous inventions which they expected their followers to believed on trust because they could not be proved (Confessions VI:5).

I think that every age has its own “Manichees” who ridicule the faith of a Christian and then put forward a system of belief (their own faith) that they say is based on science and yet is based on blind trust in man’s reason.

Augustine says that he began to prefer the “Catholic teaching,” but he was not yet a Christian. It wasn’t until he went to Milan, Italy to each rhetoric that he began going to church. St. Ambrose was the bishop in Milan, and Augustine first started attending church in an effort to refute the things Ambrose was saying. As time went on, though, he found himself being drawn into the faith.

He struggled with his budding faith, partly because he felt that, as a Christian, he could no longer teach rhetoric or engage in the behaviors in which he had delighted. One day, while in a particular fit of agony, he went into the garden area behind the house in which he was staying in Milan. While sitting in the garden in the midst of his internal struggles, he heard a voice singing, “Take it and read, take it and read.” He thought the voice was odd, since he couldn’t remember any children’s game where this phrase would be used. So, he picked up the book of Paul’s epistles that he had been reading. He opened it again and read the first passage that he saw. It was from Romans 13:13-14. In Confessions, Augustine quotes part of these verses as follows: “Not in reveling and drunkenness, not in lust and wantonness, not in quarrels and rivalries. Rather, arm yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ; spend no more thought on nature and nature’s appetites” (Confessions VIII:12).

Augustine took this to heart as a sign that he should abandon his former ways. His internal torment was now gone, and he felt that God had shown him the way. Augustine told his mother of his new-found conviction in the Christian faith, and she was overjoyed, believing it to be an answer to her lifetime of prayer for Augustine’s soul.

The rest, as they say, is history. Augustine was catechized and baptized and eventually became bishop of Hippo. He began life as a pagan, believing in the lies told by those who varnished their myths with science. He died as a Christian, believing in the eternal truth as revealed by God through Jesus Christ. His Confessions tells the story how the one man became the other.

This then, is the reason that this book had such a profound impact on me and why I recommend reading it. Augustine’s story is the story of many of our lives. The particular names and places may be different, and we may not have the “take it and read” experience of Augustine, and yet we are all united in the fact that “You cannot escape the will of God,” as Tolstoy famously said. We must come to terms with our existence and the existence of God. In attempting to do so, we seek meaning and understanding in life, and it is always helpful to see how others have engaged in this struggle. In reading St. Augustine’s Confessions, I’m sure that you’ll find a bit of yourself in the pages, as did I. It is truly timeless, applicable as much today as it was in Augustine’s day.

]]>The Christian Storyhttp://aaronsimms.com/the-christian-story/
Wed, 28 May 2014 11:49:53 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=398My new book is now available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other retailers. The synopsis: What if there was an all-encompassing narrative which links the books of the Bible around a common message? What if it were possible to step back and get a “big picture” view of what God is saying and doing in the Scriptures? Well, there …

]]>My new book is now available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other retailers.

The synopsis:

What if there was an all-encompassing narrative which links the books of the Bible around a common message? What if it were possible to step back and get a “big picture” view of what God is saying and doing in the Scriptures?

Well, there is an all-encompassing narrative, and it is possible to get a “big picture” view! This is the “Christian Story,” the message of what God is doing for His creation through Jesus Christ. It begins in Genesis and is carried through to Revelation.

This book recounts the “Christian Story” as seen through the Old Testament, focusing in particular on the Pentateuch and the historical books. You will come away from reading this book with a new appreciation for the Old Testament and how it fits within the context of God’s plans for His creation. You will also better understand God’s saving actions through Jesus Christ and how God has incorporated you into this “Christian Story.”

]]>New book cominghttp://aaronsimms.com/new-book-coming/
Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:11:56 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=359I’ve been working on a new book called “The Christian Story” that attempts to provide context to the Old Testament in terms of how Christ came to fulfill God’s promise of a Savior who would restore all creation. Thus, the entire Bible is the “Christian story,” because it is centered around Jesus Christ. I hope to have it out in …

]]>I’ve been working on a new book called “The Christian Story” that attempts to provide context to the Old Testament in terms of how Christ came to fulfill God’s promise of a Savior who would restore all creation. Thus, the entire Bible is the “Christian story,” because it is centered around Jesus Christ.

I hope to have it out in the next few months. The draft book description and cover page are below.

Thanks!

Book Description

This is the account of God’s actions in creating and then redeeming His creation through the promise of a savior.

In the beginning, God created all things good. Yet, Adam and Eve then brought sin, decay, death, and evil into the world. In response, God promised a savior who would restore His creation. This promise begins in Genesis and is carried throughout the Old Testament, culminating in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Christ came in fulfillment of God’s promise and he is coming again to complete the restoration of all creation that he began with his death and resurrection.

The story of the Old Testament is therefore the “Christian story,” because all of the Bible is centered around Jesus Christ. This book traces this story from Genesis through Esther, the Pentateuch and historical books of the Old Testament, to see how God’s promises and actions for His people are fulfilled in Christ.

You’ll come away with a new appreciation for the Old Testament and how it fits within the context of God’s plans for His creation. You’ll also better understand God’s actions through Jesus Christ on behalf of all creation.

]]>Interviewhttp://aaronsimms.com/interview/
Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:05:30 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=299I did an interview a while back for Christine Henderson for her writer’s blog (TheWriteChris) to discuss how I write and manage time. The links are below. If you’re a budding writer, I encourage you to check out the rest of her blog. Interview Main blog site [Pen image by Guillaume Carels (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aliceinw/227116873/), via Wikimedia Commons]

]]>I did an interview a while back for Christine Henderson for her writer’s blog (TheWriteChris) to discuss how I write and manage time. The links are below. If you’re a budding writer, I encourage you to check out the rest of her blog.

]]>Review of Zealot – Summary and Conclusionhttp://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-summary-and-conclusion/
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:43:07 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=271This is the conclusion and summary to my review of Zealot by Reza Aslan. If you don’t want to read through the more in-depth installments, then this post will summarize it for you. One of the main problems with Aslan’s book is that there’s really nothing new in it. There’s no new scholarship, no real citations, and no strong analytical …

]]>This is the conclusion and summary to my review of Zealot by Reza Aslan. If you don’t want to read through the more in-depth installments, then this post will summarize it for you.

One of the main problems with Aslan’s book is that there’s really nothing new in it. There’s no new scholarship, no real citations, and no strong analytical thinking. It is simply Aslan’s dramatic retelling of what other non-Christians writers have already claimed about Jesus and the early New Testament Church. The book reads like a one-way conversation you’d have with someone who sat next to you on a long plane flight and felt compelled to pour out his thoughts to you.

Another problem is that Aslan, on the one hand, dismisses the Gospel accounts as fake and full of errors. On the other hand, though, he dissects certain parts of the Gospel accounts and attaches huge significance to a particular word or phrase. So, he considers parts of the accounts to be fake and others to be real and has no real criteria to judge the two other than how they fit into his dramatic rendering of Jesus. Anything that fits his pre-conceived narrative is considered reliable, while anything that doesn’t is “not to be believed.”

I would not recommend this book to anyone. If you are a non-Christian and want to read books that attempt to tear down the faith, go read someone like Bart Ehrman. He is wrong in his beliefs, but at least he does some research before coming to the wrong conclusions.

If you are a Christian, someone with doubts, or someone who wants to know what the truth is, I recommend reading books such as:

]]>Review of Zealot – Fourth Installmenthttp://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-fourth-installment/
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 23:39:05 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=268This is the fourth installment of my review of Zealot, by Reza Aslan. You can find the previous installments here: http://lutheranchronicles.com/review-of-zealot-first-installment/ http://lutheranchronicles.com/review-of-zealot-second-installment/ http://lutheranchronicles.com/review-of-zealot-third-installment/ I’ve already covered Parts I and II of Aslan’s book, so this installment begins with Aslan’s prologue to Part III. Most of his prologue is centered around the martyrdom of the disciple Stephen, mentioned in Acts 6 …

I’ve already covered Parts I and II of Aslan’s book, so this installment begins with Aslan’s prologue to Part III.

Most of his prologue is centered around the martyrdom of the disciple Stephen, mentioned in Acts 6 and 7. Aslan claims that Stephen “did not himself know Jesus of Nazareth” (Aslan 163). However, no where in Acts is it said, or can it be inferred, that Stephen did not know Jesus. Aslan seems to make this claim for dramatic effect and to advance his narrative that Stephen died for an imaginary Jesus that had been hijacked for theological purposes.

Aslan also claims that there is no place in the Old Testament that speaks of a Messiah who will suffer, die, and rise. This is not true. In particular, Isaiah 52:13-52:12 speaks of the Messiah who will bear the sins of the people, die with the wicked, and be buried, and will live to see “his offspring.” Isaiah talks about a Messiah who will die and yet live. Aslan mentions this text from Isaiah, but discounts it.

So, Aslan circles back to his contention that Stephen did not know Jesus and that “practically every word ever written about Jesus of Nazareth, including every gospel story in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was written by people who, like Stephen and Paul, never actually knew Jesus when he was alive” (Aslan 170). His premise is that the writers of the books of the New Testament didn’t know Jesus and created him as the Messiah for their own theological purposes. He follows this by strangely claiming that the apostles “could neither read nor write” (Aslan 171). In order to make these contentions, though, Aslan has to date the New Testament writings late, consider them as full of errors, and selectively choose which passages he will believe and which he will reject. He’s basically forming the evidence to fit his premise, rather than allowing the evidence to lead to a conclusion.

At the end of the prologue, Aslan sets up a conflict between James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul, the former Pharisee and convert to Christianity. Aslan says that these two men were “two bitter and openly hostile adversaries” (Aslan 171). He doesn’t have any evidence for this perceived conflict between James and Paul, but will try to create a sense of conflict in later chapters.

In Chapter Thirteen, Aslan discusses Jesus’ death and crucifixion. He tries to portray his crucifixion as one among many and nothing special. He mentions the fact that the Gospels record that the veil in the Temple that shielded the Holy of Holies and separated people from God’s presence was torn when Jesus died. He (mosly) correctly understands the Christian significance of this tearing of the veil. The point is that Jesus, as our great High Priest, has sacrificed himself in order to reconcile us to God. Therefore, we are no longer separated from God and are instead made priests, able to come before God and intercede on behalf of others. Aslan sees this as a replacement of the Temple just as Jesus’ words had replaced the Law. However, what Jesus is really doing is fulfilling the purpose of the Temple and fulfilling the Law, not replacing them. The Temple was where the Lord’s presence dwelt in the midst of His people; Jesus is the true Temple. The Law is God’s perfect will for us; Jesus fulfilled this for us on our behalf.

Aslan discusses Jesus’ resurrection and doesn’t discount it outright. He points out that Jesus’ disciples went to their own deaths, refusing to recant their belief that Jesus rose from the dead; this would be strange if they didn’t really believe that Jesus had died and risen. He also points out that, unlike all the other people who had claimed to be a messiah, Jesus is the only one who is “still called messiah” (Aslan 175). All the others have faded into history, but Jesus is still not only remembered, but worshipped as God. Aslan contends, though, that the resurrection accounts of Jesus in the Gospels were written long after the fact and that they were created to justify theological belief. This doesn’t quite square, though, with his earlier statement that Jesus’ disciples died refusing to recant their belief in the resurrection Christ. Aslan quotes Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians where Paul states that Jesus died, was buried, and rose “according to the scriptures” (Aslan 175; 1 Corinthians 15:2-8). The scriptures mentioned by Paul are what we today call the Old Testament; at the time, they would have just been the Scriptures. Paul’s point is that Jesus died and rose in accordance with God’s promises given in the Old Testament! Aslan disputes that any Old Testament prophecies point to the Messiah dying and rising, but centuries of Christian theologians disagree.

Aslan also tries to create the impression of discord between the Jews in Jerusalem and the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora (i.e. the Jews who lived outside Jerusalem). There’s no fact behind what Aslan is saying, but he spends a lot of ink trying to make it so (as he does in other places). He also says that Jesus came not to fulfill the law, but to abolish it; this is contrary to Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5:17.

Chapter Fourteen and Fifteen return to Aslan’s theme of “conflict” between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. Aslan seems to like this sense of conflict, as he creates it out of thin air to serve his purposes. Chapter Fourteen discusses Paul and paints a false picture of Paul as someone at odds with the apostles who were at Jerusalem. To support this, Aslan quotes part of Galatians 2:6 where Paul mentions the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem and says (in Aslan’s rendering), “Whatever they are makes no difference to me” (Aslan 185). The full verse, however, reads, “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” Paul’s point in this and surrounding verses is that Christ called him to be an apostle and that he received his teachings from Christ and not from the leaders in Jerusalem. This doesn’t mean that he is in opposition to them; it means that he is on the same level as them as an apostle. I also think that quoting the full verse gives a different impression than Aslan’s selection.

Aslan also quotes Paul’s words in Galatians 1:15 to claim that Paul is saying that he was “called by Jesus into apostleship while still in the womb” (Aslan 185-186). Again, looking at the full verse and its context gives a different picture: “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus” (Galatians 1:11-17).

Paul’s point is that he received the Gospel from Jesus Christ himself. He also talks about how God called him by his grace before he was born and set him apart; that is, God elected him for salvation out of His grace and mercy. Then, he revealed His Son (Jesus Christ) to him (Paul) and called him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Aslan also attempts to create a contradiction between Paul in Romans 10:13 (“everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved”) and Jesus in Matthew 7:21 (“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven”) (Aslan 187). I find this disingenuous on Aslan’s part. For one, Paul’s reference is to the Old Testament book of Joel (Joel 2:32). His point, as seen in the rest of the context, is that it is by faith in Christ that we rightly call on the name of the Lord. Jesus’ point is similar in Matthew; it is only by faith in him that we are saved and our faith then produces works.

Aslan also misunderstand’s Paul’s point when he calls Jesus Christ the “firstborn of all creation” (strangely, Aslan cites 1 Corinthians 8:6, but a better citation would be Colossians 1:15). Paul’s point is not, as Aslan says, that Jesus is the “first of God’s creations” or that he is “God’s physical progeny” (Aslan 189). Instead, Paul’s point is that as the “firstborn” Christ is pre-eminent over all things; he is the Word of God through whom the Father spoke creation into existence. He is also the “firstborn” of the dead, “preeminent” in all things since he is reconciling his creation to God through his death and resurrection. Aslan also states that Christians are to be “divine and eternal” like Christ (Aslan 189). This is not God’s plan for us, though. We are to be restored and fully human again, since the sin and death that separate us from God and each other will be removed from God’s creation when Christ returns. We have a foretaste of this restoration and reconciliation now in the Church where God’s reign has come to us, but will have it completely when Christ returns to finish what he started with his death and resurrection.

Aslan’s goal in all this is to make it seem like Paul is preaching a different Christ than that preached by James and the apostles. He makes it sound like James is sending people to the churches to contradict Paul, and that Paul is preaching a “Romanized religion” while James is preaching a form of Judaism. It is true that there was disagreement in the early Church between those who believed that there was no longer a need to follow Jewish law and those who believed that it was still necessary to follow Jewish law to be saved. Paul’s letters continually preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is received through faith, rather than through works; Paul is preaching against those who believed that works were necessary for salvation. However, this conflict was resolved in the early Church as people began to understand that Christ did everything for our salvation and that we do nothing for our salvation. Therefore, it is not necessary to follow the Old Testament laws to be saved; in fact, if a person trusts in anything else for his salvation (such as the works of the Law) other than Christ, then he is rejecting Christ and trusting in his own works instead. Paul continually makes this point in his epistles.

However, Paul was willing to bend for the sake of other people’s consciences. He refused to bend his teachings, but he would bend with regard to practices. He writes in 1 Corinthians: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

So, Paul was willing to bear with the weaknesses of other people. It is in this context that I see the event in Acts 21:17-26 where Paul agrees to a purification ritual at the Temple in Jerusalem. Aslan sees this as Paul repudiating what he had been teaching. However, I see Paul willing to bear with the weaknesses of the Church in Jerusalem and going along with the ritual in an effort to win more people over to the Gospel. He is trying not to drive people away from the Gospel by being an offense to them. Aslan interprets this event differently, however, and sees in it evidence of conflict between Paul and James; he calls this Paul’s “embarrassing spectacle at the Temple” (Aslan 193-195).

Chapter Fifteen shifts to a discussion about “James the Just,” Jesus’ brother. He is a different person than James (the son of Alphaeus) and James (the son of Zebedee) who were both apostles. James, the son of Zebedee, is often mentioned in the New Testament in connection with his brother John as well as Peter. Peter, James, and John are the three apostles who Jesus calls out for special attention. They see more of his miracles, they see him transformed at the Mount of Transfiguration, and they are close to Jesus. In some parts of this chapter, though, Aslan seems to confuse James the Just (Jesus’ brother) with James the son of Zebedee.

Regardless, Aslan’s goal in this chapter is to paint James the Just, Jesus’ brother, as the true heir of Jesus. He cites Clement of Rome, in an epistle to James, as calling James “the Bishop of Bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of the Hebrews, and all the Assemblies everywhere” (Aslan 200). This makes it sound like Clement is calling James the leader of the whole Church on earth. However, this epistle is likely not genuine and was not written by Clement. Aslan also cites the Gnostic “Gospel of Thomas,” which was probably written in the second century and was roundly rejected by the early Church.

Aslan also claims that Clement of Alexandria said that “Jesus imparted a secret knowledge to ‘James the Just, to John, and to Peter,’ who in turn imparted it to the other Apostles” (Aslan 200). This quote from Clement of Alexandria is found in the ancient historian Eusebius’ “History of the Church.” The full quote from Eusebius is: “To James the Just, and John and Peter, the Lord after His resurrection imparted knowledge. These imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one” (see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.pdf, pg. 1224). Aslan adds the word “secret” to his summary of this quote which, I think, gives it a vastly different meaning than that given by Eusebius’ quote. In addition, Eusebius writes: “Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour’s ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem” (ibid, pg. 1223). Aslan argues that James the Just was in the Lord’s inner circle, but here Clement and Eusebius are saying that Peter, James (the son of Zebedee), and John were in the Lord’s inner circle. They, however, in their humility, made James the Lord’s brother (i.e. “James the Just”) bishop of Jerusalem.

Aslan also dissects the Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus (and James). Most Christians, however, believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus, but then she and her husband Joseph later had natural children of their own, of whom James was one.

Aslan also argues that James’ epistle is “arguably one of the most important books in the New Testament” (Aslan 204). This would be news to centuries of Church theologians, since James’ epistle (along with Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John) was never considered to be on the same level as the other New Testament books. The four Gospels and Paul’s letters were considered pre-eminant and the lens through which the other books were interpreted (my book “On this Rock” goes into more detail about these facets of the development of the New Testament). Aslan also claims that the books of the New Testament were not officially canonized until the late fourth century (Aslan 209). This is not exactly true. While it is true that a formal council of bishops did not meet until the late fourth century at which point they agreed on the canonical list of the New Testament Scriptures, the books of the New Testament were treated as canonical by the Church as early as the first century. Thus, the Council of Nicaea simply recognized what the Church had accepted as fact since the beginning (again, not to tout my own book too much, but I go into more detail there).

Thus, Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen (as well as the Epilogue) in Aslan’s book attempt to create a sense of division in the early Church between Paul and his followers and James the Just and his followers. Aslan’s contention is that since James died early, Paul’s views were able to take over. I don’t find this a credible theory. The book of Acts relates how the early Church dealt with the issue of how the Law relates to the Gospel and justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ, apart from works. The issue was settled in favor of grace and faith, with works seen as flowing from a person’s faith. In addition, the reason that Paul’s writings are so prominent in the New Testament is not that he was a bully and loudmouth (basically Aslan’s contention), but that they were recognized by the early Church as reflecting the teachings of the apostles. The Church adopted Paul’s letters as its own, because Paul’s teachings reflected the teachings of the apostles who had founded the various congregations of the Church.

The book ends on this note, with Aslan contending that “Jesus of Nazareth” was lost to history and that Paul’s views took over.

This is the last in-depth installment of my review of Reza Aslan’s Zealot. I’ll conclude my review with one more subsequent post which will summarize the previous installments.

]]>Review of Zealot – Third Installmenthttp://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-third-installment/
Mon, 02 Sep 2013 23:37:33 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=264This is the third installment of my review of Zealot, by Reza Aslan. You can find the first and second installments here: http://lutheranchronicles.com/review-of-zealot-first-installment/ http://lutheranchronicles.com/review-of-zealot-second-installment/ The second installment covered Part I of the book, and this installment begins with Aslan’s prologue to Part II. In his prologue to Part II, Aslan tries to paint Jesus as a “zealot,” using the word …

The second installment covered Part I of the book, and this installment begins with Aslan’s prologue to Part II.

In his prologue to Part II, Aslan tries to paint Jesus as a “zealot,” using the word “zeal” to understand “who Jesus was and what Jesus meant” (Aslan 73). In a few places throughout the book, Aslan states that the “Zealot Party,” as such, did not exist until much later. However, there was most definitely a zealot movement and group that began with the Roman takeover of Judea in 6 AD (see the article here for additional background information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry ). Simon the Zealot, one of Jesus’ disciples, was associated with this movement; he was called the “Zealot” to differentiate him from Simon called Peter (the “Rock”).

Aslan’s main goal in the prologue is to paint Jesus as a “zealot” who is against the Temple authorities in Jerusalem and who opposes Roman rule. He even goes so far as to say that Jesus “claimed to be the promised messiah sent to liberate the Jews from Roman occupation” (Aslan 77). This is not, however, what Jesus claimed. He is the promised Messiah, but he did not come to liberate the Jews from Roman occupation, he came to die and rise for sinful humanity. In fact, his disinterest in liberating the Jews from occupation led to his betrayal by Judas Iscariot and his rejection by the crowds who had welcomed him into Jerusalem as “king” on Palm Sunday, but then shouted “crucify him” on Good Friday.

Aslan follows this with a series of bad exegeses on Jesus’ statement in Luke 20:25 to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Aslan takes this statement to mean that Jesus was advocating the removal of Roman authority from the land. This interpretation goes against the rest of the Gospel witness as well as the interpretation of centuries of the Church.

After laying the false foundation for his premise that Jesus is a political “zealot,” Aslan moves to Chapter Seven to discuss Jesus’ relationship with John the Baptist. To Aslan, Jesus is a disciple of John who takes over John’s ministry after he is arrested. He discusses John’s baptism and mentions the various ritual washings of the Jews. He also says that the purpose of John’s baptism was to bring people into the “new nation of Israel… ready to receive the Kingdom of God.” He doesn’t really close the loop, though, and get to the main significance of John’s baptism. Whereas the Jewish ritual washings were repeated and there was a one-time purity washing for converts, it was a foreign concept to them to baptize those who were already Jews. It was odd to them, because they thought they were already part of Israel due to their physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, John’s Baptism was different precisely because he called Jews to repentance; those who thought they were part of Israel were called to repent and be baptized in anticipation of Christ’s coming. So, Aslan is partially correct but doesn’t really connect the dots here.

Aslan also states that the Gospel account about John the Baptist’s death “is not to be believed” (Aslan 81). He says that “the evangelists mistakenly identify Herodias’s first husband as Philip” (ibid.). Herodias was the wife of Herod Antipas and her first husband was, in fact, Philip; this is backed up by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus who Aslan himself is wont to reference (see Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.4). Aslan also accuses the Gospel writers of other errors, but I believe Aslan to be mistaken in these cases as well.

Aslan also references Josephus in stating that John’s baptism was “not for the remission of sins, but for the purification of the body” (Aslan 85). Aslan’s point is that the Gospel accounts of John’s baptism are in conflict with Josephus’ account. In order to find the source for the quote from Josephus, I had to turn to Aslan’s notes in the back of the book where he cites Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews ”18.116.” There is no book 18, chapter 116 in Josephus’ work; the correct reference is to 18.5.2 where Josephus discusses John the Baptist and his baptism. Josephus views John’s baptism as standing on its own, whereas the early Church understood it as pointing people to Christ and the forgiveness that he brings. This is why the Gospels call John’s baptism a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The repentance paves the way for the person to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ which brings forgiveness. Thus, Aslan’s set up of a conflict between Josephus and the Gospels is misplaced; the Gospels are not claiming what Aslan says they claim. That is, it is not John’s baptism that brings forgiveness of sins; it is Jesus Christ who brings forgiveness, and John paved the way of his coming by calling people to repentance.

Not surprisingly, Aslan also misinterprets John’s baptism of Jesus and views it as largely a fabrication. The real point (missed by Aslan) of Jesus’ baptism is that he stands in our place. He stood in our place as he, sinless as he is, was baptized into a baptism of repentance; he has done everything perfectly for us. This baptism also connects us with his cross, where he died and rose for us in our place; Jesus referred to his death and resurrection as his “baptism.” Thus, our baptisms connect us with his death and resurrection. Jesus’ baptism is also a moment of the inauguration of the restoration of his creation. In Genesis 1, the Father is speaking forth His Word (the Son) to create, and the Holy Spirit is hovering over the surface of the created waters. In Jesus’ baptism, the Son is in the water, the Father is speaking, and the Holy Spirit descends upon the son. It is an image of recreation showing that Jesus has come to restore his creation as the Word of God in the flesh.

In Chapter Eight, Aslan discusses Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. He overstates his case concerning the rebelliousness of Galilee, noting that Solomon was not able to “tame Galilee.” The main point of this chapter is to try to paint Jesus as a prophet preaching a message of economic and political liberation. He misinterprets the parable of the Good Samaritan, not understanding that in the parable Jesus himself is the Good Samaritan. Jesus was rejected by men and yet he paid all in order to save us and redeem us from death, even shedding his own blood. He wasn’t afraid to get dirty to save us, unlike the self-righteous priest and Levite in the story. Of all people, Jesus as the holy Lord God in the flesh has the right to be aloof and far off; yet, he comes to us to save us, getting dirty and sweaty and bloody on the cross to do so. Aslan, though, doesn’t recognize this. He views Jesus as “just another traveling miracle worker and professional exorcist roaming through Galilee performing tricks” (Aslan 102).

Chapter Nine is interesting in that Aslan admits that no one in the ancient world ever doubted Jesus’ miracles. Instead, his enemies sought to explain them away as magic or as works of the devil. Aslan also tries to paint Jesus as one among many “magicians” in the ancient world. He discusses “magic” versus “miracle,” but doesn’t really explain the difference between the two. Magic, in the ancient world, was the art of manipulating gods and powers to achieve a desired result. A miracle, on the other hand, was something brought about by God due to His own volition. Thus the debate between Jesus’ supporters and detractors: if he performed miracles, this meant he was God – if he was a magician, this meant he manipulated the spirits.

Aslan seems to favor the interpretation that Jesus was a magician. In support of this he cites the cases where Jesus used his touch or his spit in his healing of someone. In particular he refers to the instance in Mark 7:31-35 where Jesus healed a man who was deaf and had a problem speaking. Jesus put his fingers in his ears, spat, touched his tongue, and said “Be opened;” the man was then healed. Aslan thinks this is a magical ritual. I see this as God working through His creation to heal His creation (a theme I’ve written about previously). God came in the flesh to heal His creation. Here is Jesus, God incarnate, healing his creation, and he uses parts of his creation as his means of healing. We have a similar thing with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; God coming to us through the waters of baptism and with the bread and wine of the Supper. God also comes to us through His spoken and written Word. We, as embodied creatures, are approached by God through embodied means.

Aslan even seems to begin to understand the implications later when he says that Jesus’s miracles are the sign that “God’s reign has begun” and “are thus the manifestation of God’s kingdom on earth” (Aslan 111-112). Earlier where Aslan painted Jesus as a magician, one among many, here he is acknowledging the implications of Jesus’s miracles.

Aslan also refers to the account in Matthew’s Gospel of Jesus healing a leper (Matthew 8). Jesus heals the leper and then tells the leper, in Aslan’s translation, “Go show yourself to the priest… Offer him as a testimony the things that the Law of Moses commanded for your cleansing” (Aslan 112). Aslan believes that Jesus is joking and that he is trying to show up the priests at the Temple. He says that Jesus is not telling the healed leper to go and offer the sacrifices prescribed in the Law. However, if you look at Matthew 8, this is exactly what Jesus is telling the man. He says to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them” (Matthew 8:4). The proof that the man was once leprous is the fact that he is giving the gift that Moses commanded in the Law for a person who had been healed of leprosy. Jesus has come to heal and to fulfill the Law, so he tells the man he healed to go and do according to the Law. It’s not a joke! Jesus really is telling the man to go do this.

In Chapter Ten, Aslan discusses the concept of the Kingdom of God and what it means. He rightly says that “Practically everything Jesus said or did in the gospels served the function of publicly proclaiming the Kingdom’s coming” (Aslan 116). However, he misses the mark in his definition of what the Kingdom of God is. He views the Kingdom as a real, earthly kingdom with a king in a political sense. He sees this Kingdom as a new type of political and economic order on earth, even interpreting the Beatitudes in this light. Aslan gets close to the truth here, but doesn’t get all the way there. The Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is God’s “active reign” on the earth. The “Kingdom” is not a place, it is God’s reign where He brings His grace and mercy and healing through Jesus.

So, the things Jesus does are proclaiming the coming of this active reign; every person he forgives and person he heals shows the coming of God’s reign among His people. God is establishing His Kingdom, His reign, on earth; it is among His Church. The promise of redeemed Israel given in Exodus 19 for them to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” is fulfilled in the Church, which is God’s people Israel. Christ is the head of the Church, and the Church is his people. Among his people there is a foretaste of what is to come. Within the Church there is forgiveness and restoration to God and each other, but only in part. We await Christ’s return when he will complete all things and we will be fully restored, along with all creation. Everything will be healed. So, Christ’s healing miracles are pointing to how he will heal all things at his return. Aslan misses all this greatness of Christ’s work, though, and focuses his sights so narrowly on a political kingdom on earth (sadly, many Christians make the same short-sighted error). He therefore interprets Jesus’s sayings in light of his notion of the Kingdom as a political entity which is in opposition to Rome.

Aslan also claims that “Jesus was concerned exclusively with the fate of his fellow Jews. Israel was all that mattered to Jesus” (Aslan 121). Again, Aslan misunderstands the mission of Jesus and the identity of Israel. Israel is all those people gathered by God around the promised Messiah, or Christ; Israel is the Church. The Old Testament saints, from the time of Adam through Seth through Noah through Abraham through Isaac through Jacob and through the people called Israel are the Old Testament Church. They looked forward to the coming of the Christ. The New Testament saints, from the time of Christ’s incarnation until now, are the people of Israel who live in the light of the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. All people of all times and places have only ever been justified by God one way: by His grace through faith in Christ.

The Old Testament Israel’s mission, in fact, was to be a light among the nations. They were to be the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) witnesses on earth among the nations (the Gentiles). So, there was God’s nation, Israel, and the other nations, the Gentiles. This continues in the New Testament where God’s nation Israel is sent among the nations to bear witness to the coming of the Christ. We call this New Testament Israel the Church. It’s mission, as given in Matthew 28 by Jesus Christ himself, is to go and “make disciples of all nations,” that is to say the Gentiles. In addition, in the Gospels Jesus is seen interacting with Gentiles, even healing the servant of a Roman centurion and praising the Roman’s faith. It is disingenuous for Aslan to paint Jesus as unconcerned with the Gentiles. Aslan even tries to interpret “neighbor” as referring only to the Jews, but Jesus’ own parable about the Good Samaritan was precisely given to broaden the conception of neighbor to encompass all people (in fact, the hero of the story, the Samaritan, was not a Jew). The rest of Chapter Ten of Aslan’s book contains other misinterpretations of Jesus’s sayings as Aslan attempts to shoe-horn them into his contention that Jesus was advocating a political kingdom and overthrow of Roman rule.

Chapter Eleven continues this theme of Jesus promoting “a movement of national liberation” as a disciple of John the Baptist (Aslan 127). Aslan also says that Jesus was taking up the mantle of Elijah and trying to identify himself with Elijah; this is a completely false statement (as is the statement that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist). Just a few pages later, though, Aslan admits that Jesus has come to succeed John, Elijah, and Moses. He sees this, however, as an attempt by the Gospel writers to make Jesus out to be the Messiah or Christ. He correctly points out that Jesus did not fit pre-conceived Jewish notions of what the Messiah would do when he arrived. This is why in the Gospels opposition to Jesus increases towards the end of his life, he is not coming to liberate the Jews from Roman occupation as many of them expected. The rejection of Jesus by the people is precisely because he did not come to do what Aslan says he came to do; Jesus did not come to bring a program of “national liberation,” he came to usher in the in-breaking of the reign of God.

Chapter Twelve tries to further paint Jesus as a political “zealot” bent on liberating the Jews from Roman rule. Aslan becomes even more dramatic in this chapter, describing Jesus’ arrest at Gethsemane as some sort of battle between Jesus’ disciples and the soldiers sent to arrest him. There are many problems with this chapter. One is the false dramatization of Jesus’ arrest. Another is Aslan’s late dating of the writing of the book of Daniel. Another is Aslan’s odd and false statement that the Temple in Jerusalem was “the principle symbol of Rome’s hegemony over Judea” (Aslan 147). Another is Aslan’s contention that after the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD (odd, given that the Temple was supposedly the symbol of Rome’s power over the region) Christians sought to separate themselves from Jews to avoid persecution. Aslan seems to forget that Christians were very much persecuted by the Romans, more so than the Jews in fact.

Aslan also views most of the description in the Gospels of Jesus’ arrest and trial as fabrications. He even lays out a bizarre argument that the laws and regulations for trials before the Sanhedrin as described by the Jewish Mishnah show that the accounts in the Gospels are incorrect. The Mishnah was written about 200 AD. Aslan acknowledges that the rules in the Mishnah did not apply in the 30′s AD when Jesus was arrested. His argument, though, is that since the Gospels were written much later and they did not reflect later Jewish practice in their account of the trial of Jesus, that they therefore “cast doubt on the historicity of the trial before Caiaphas” (Aslan 157). This is a circular argument. Aslan claims that the Gospels were written near the end of the first century (and into the second), and that they do not reflect Jewish practices of that time, but of an earlier time. He concludes, therefore, that they are incorrect. An alternative explanation is that the Gospels were, in fact, written much closer to the events they describe and therefore accurately reflect practices at that time. The reason they don’t reflect later Jewish practices is that these practices weren’t in existence at the time the Gospels were written! This seems to be a much more logical explanation to me than Aslan’s circular argument.

Chapter Twelve is followed by another Prologue, this time to Part III of Aslan’s book. The next installment of this review will continue with this Prologue.

]]>Review of Zealot – Second Installmenthttp://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-second-installment/
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:34:11 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=261This is the second installment of my review of Zealot, by Reza Aslan. You can find the first installment here: http://lutheranchronicles.com/review-of-zealot-first-installment/ I previously covered the general premise of the book as well as the Author’s Note and Introduction, so I’ll now begin again at the prologue to “Part I” of the book. Aslan’s prologue is focused on the role of …

I previously covered the general premise of the book as well as the Author’s Note and Introduction, so I’ll now begin again at the prologue to “Part I” of the book.

Aslan’s prologue is focused on the role of the Temple and of the priests at the time of Christ. He provides a good summary of the Jewish festivals and describes the Temple and its sacrifices. However, he states, “The cycle of life and death that the Lord in his omnificence has decreed is wholly dependent upon your sacrifice” (Aslan 5). This is actually a pagan view of sacrifice. That is, the pagan religions believed that by making a sacrifice you could bend your god to your will and achieve some benefit from him. It is certainly true that by the time of Christ, many Jews held to this (incorrect) sort of belief system. However, the Old Testament sacrifices can be seen through the lens of God’s means of grace; He instituted the sacrifices as a means of delivering His grace to His people. They were responding to what He had first done for them and receiving His grace through the means He had instituted. The Lord is not like some sort of vending machine where we put in the right sacrifice or offering and get Him to respond as we desire.

Indeed, Aslan later gets to the true purpose of the Temple, albeit obliquely. It was the place where God placed His name and where He promised to dwell in the midst of His people on the earth (Aslan 6-7). Aslan also states that it was the place “where a Jew can commune with the living God” (Aslan 7). He also correctly describes the Holy of Holies and the function of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), although he places the emphasis on the worthiness of the High Priest to receive God’s blessings. This, perhaps, is not a bad emphasis, since as Christians we believe Jesus Christ to be the perfect High Priest who entered into the presence of his Father with his own blood as the sacrifice (check out the book of Hebrews, especially beginning at chapter 7). However, I always have a visceral reaction against placing any sort of emphasis on a person’s own inherit worthiness before God. We are sinful people who are unworthy on our own to stand before the Holy Lord God. In His grace and mercy, though, He makes us worthy by atoning for our sins (i.e. Jesus Christ as the High Priest sacrificing himself on the true Day of Atonement – his crucifixion) and clothing us with the righteousness of Christ. So, it is all His doing.

That really is what the prologue is missing, an emphasis on how the Temple was pointing towards Christ and what he would do on the cross and through his Church. Christ, as our great High Priest, atoned for our sins on the cross and is with us now in the Church through his means of grace (i.e. Baptism, Lord’s Supper, confession/absolution, preaching of the Gospel). He has fulfilled the Temple, because he is the true Temple; he is “Immanuel” – “God with us.” It’s understandable that Aslan would not make these points, since he is not a Christian, but it illustrates what is lost when reading a book about Jesus written by a non-Christian.

Chapter One focuses on the history of the area of Judea (Aslan calls the area Palestine), focusing on Roman interaction with the Jews. There is nothing too remarkable in this chapter, and the history is generally good and accurate. The end of the chapter contains some melodrama that makes for good reading, but is somewhat speculative.

Chapter Two talks about the expectation of the Jews for the coming of the Messiah. Aslan states, “The principal task of the messiah, who was popularly believed to be the descendant of King David, was to rebuild David’s kingdom and reestablish the nation of Israel” (Aslan 19). This was indeed the popular belief of what the Messiah would do when he arrived, although in the Gospels we see Jesus redefining what Israel is and what the kingdom of God means. The kingdom of God is His reign through Christ, and Israel is the Church of all believers (Old and New Testament) gathered by God around Christ. Aslan, though, focuses on the belief of the Jews in a Messiah who would come to restore political independence to the Jews.

Aslan then turns his attention to Herod the Great, who he calls a “clever young Jewish nobleman from Idumea.” Herod, though, was not Jewish; he was Idumean. In fact, he married a Jewish woman in order to boost his credentials as “King of the Jews.” Later, Aslan makes mention of Herod’s Idumean lineage and says that Herod was a convert to Judaism, but this seems to me to give a false impression. Herod was not a religious, observant Jew; he was a politician who did whatever it took to get and keep power (including murdering members of his own family).

Aslan also talks about Herod’s rebuilding of the Temple on top of Mount Moriah, but fails to mention the fact that this is where Solomon’s Temple also once stood, until its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BC. It’s a curious omission and may betray the fact that Aslan doesn’t believe that Solomon’s Temple really existed, a common belief by Muslims in an effort to support their claims to the Temple mount.

At the end of Chapter Two, Aslan says that Jesus was born sometime between Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC and 6 AD. This doesn’t square with the accounts in Matthew and Luke of Jesus’ birth, because they clearly state that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive. However, Aslan discounts these birth accounts as fiction. In Chapter Three, Aslan says that Jesus was born in Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem, and that Matthew and Luke made up their accounts.

Aslan discusses the census recorded by Luke in Luke 2:1-3. He connects this with a census which occurred in 6 AD, which is much too late for Jesus’ birth. There are various issues (explainable, I think) associated with Luke’s account, which Aslan correctly notes. A fuller technical discussion of these issues can be found at http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx

Suffice it to say, the governor of Syria that Luke names, Quirinius, was not the governor of Syria during Herod the Great’s reign. He was governor in 6 AD and did institute a census, which led to uprisings in the area. On the surface, then, it appears that Luke is incorrect. However, it is possible that Quirinius held some other official capacity in the region prior to Herod’s death in 4 BC and that the word translated “governor” is a general term referring to his position. Another possibility is that the word translated “first” in our English Bibles should rather be translated “before.” Verse 2:2 of Luke’s Gospel would then read, “This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” To me, this makes the most sense. The census in 6 AD caused revolts in Judea, so Luke, writing much later, would have felt the need to clarify that the census he was referring to was one that was before this better-known and infamous census of 6 AD.

Aslan then makes what I consider to be a very incorrect statement. He says, “… Luke never meant for his story about Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem to be understood as historical fact… The notion of history as a critical analysis of observable and verifiable events in the past is a product of the modern age…” (Aslan 30). The fact that Aslan says this just astounds me. It is refuted by Luke’s prologue, where he expressly sets forth his purpose in providing an “orderly account.” Luke is writing history. Aslan’s contention is also refuted by ancient historians such as Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, and others, all of whom wrote “history as a critical analysis of observable and verifiable events in the past.” They wrote about the past, because they considered the events of the past as lessons for the future. Aslan makes a distinction between facts and truth, but these ancient historians considered the uncovering of facts to be the uncovering of truth; we learn what others did before us in order to arrive at a greater truth that will help us in our own time. Luke, writing about Jesus, sought to give an orderly account, an historical account, to show that what Christians believe as true is founded in historical fact.

Chapter Three has additional problems. One is Aslan’s claim that Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah conflict and that some of them are not even prophecies. Another is Aslan’s connection of the prophecy of Hosea 11:1 with Moses: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Aslan believes the “son” referred to is Moses, and that Matthew quotes from this verse to show how Jesus is the “new Moses.” This is an incorrect understanding of this verse and of Jesus’ role. The “son” is not Moses, it is Israel. The connection with Jesus is that he is Israel in one person; he is the fulfillment of Israel, carrying out its mission to reveal the one true God to humanity. As the New Testament Church we are “in Christ,” we are part of Israel, his body.

Chapter Four focuses on the first century Jewish group called the “zealots” and attempts to tie Jesus to this group. In this chapter Aslan claims that Jesus was illiterate and that there was no synagogue in Nazareth. He notes that the city of Sepphoris was “just a day’s walk” from Nazareth and that the tradesmen from Nazareth would have traveled to Sepphoris to work in the construction boom of the time. Sepphoris was actually much closer, about an hour’s walk from Nazareth, but it has been speculated by reputable sources that Jesus might have worked in Sepphoris as a carpenter in his younger years. Aslan also states that there is no evidence that Jesus was ever married (which is correct). Coming from his non-Christian perspective, though, he speaks of Jesus being “declared messiah.”

Aslan also tries to pit the apostle John against the apostle Paul, attempting to make the point that they viewed Jesus’ origins differently. Aslan says that John “presents Jesus as an otherworldly spirit without earthly origins” while Paul “thinks of Jesus as literally God incarnate” (Aslan 36). I don’t know how anyone who has read the beginning of John’s Gospel could think that John doesn’t view Jesus as “literally God incarnate” as well. Indeed, John says, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

Chapter Five talks about Pontius Pilate and Roman rule in the region. Thankfully, Aslan correctly calls Pilate the fifth prefect of Judea, although he also equates this with the position of governor. Equating a prefect and a governor is not technically correct, but I understand that Aslan is trying to explain to his readers the role of a prefect; he governed the region for which he was responsible. I said “thankfully” above, because many people incorrectly call Pilate a procurator, rather than a prefect. The Romans sent procurators to provinces which were nominally under the control of the Roman Senate; these senatorial provinces were considered “stable” and had procurators assigned to them to handle the province’s financial affairs. The provinces under the direct control of the Emperor were called imperial provinces and were looked after by prefects who had military control in the area. These imperial provinces were considered less stable or of strategic importance. Thus, it tells us something that Judea was looked after by a prefect, rather than a procurator. For one, it speaks to the instability of the region. For another, it speaks to its importance to the Romans. It may have been a backwater of the empire, but it formed an important buffer to the Parthian Empire to the East.

Aslan says that the Gospels try to paint Pilate as “a righteous yet weak-willed man” (Aslan 47). The truth is that the Gospels do not speak much about Pilate; indeed, with few exceptions they only speak of him in connection with Jesus’ trial and execution. The exceptions are that Luke mentions Pilate as a dating reference for the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry and Luke again mentions Pilate in Luke 13. In fact, Luke 13 hints at the cruelty of Pilate when Luke records, “There were some present at that very time who told [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1).

Chapter Six covers the period of the revolt of the Jews from Roman rule, from 66 AD to 73 AD. This is an interesting chapter and largely historically accurate. The main problem I have with it, though, is that it mixes in consequences from the later Bar Kokhba revolt (132 to 136 AD). That is, Aslan speaks of the Romans, in the earlier revolt, of attempting to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth (pg. 62), expelling them from the land (pg. 68), and of renaming Jerusalem “Aelia Capitolina” (pg. 68). These events did not happen until the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 136AD; they did not happen at the conclusion of the first revolt in 73AD. The revolt that largely ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD had a number of serious consequences, but the expulsion of the Jews and the renaming of the city did not occur until after the Romans put down the Bar Kokhba revolt. The general tenor of this chapter is melodramatic, which is why I think Aslan confutes the two revolts; he is doing it for dramatic effect.

This is the end of this installment of my review. The next installment will begin with “Part II” of Aslan’s book and his prologue within Part II.

]]>Review of Zealot – First Installmenthttp://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-first-installment/
http://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-first-installment/#commentsSun, 11 Aug 2013 23:29:31 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=254There’s been a lot on the news lately about a new book called Zealot, written by Reza Aslan. I’ve decided to review and split it up into multiple parts due to space (as well as the fact that I’ll be writing the review as I read the book). This installment of the review covers the Author’s Note and Introduction portions …

]]>There’s been a lot on the news lately about a new book called Zealot, written by Reza Aslan. I’ve decided to review and split it up into multiple parts due to space (as well as the fact that I’ll be writing the review as I read the book). This installment of the review covers the Author’s Note and Introduction portions of the book. The next installment of the review will begin with the prologue.

If you look at the Amazon.com reviews of this book, people either love it or hate it; it’s either the best thing to happen to the study of the “historical Jesus” or a complete fraud.

A lot of the opposition arises from the fact that Aslan is a Muslim. In the “Author’s Note” in the book he talks about how he grew up as a secular Muslim, “found Jesus” in high school, and then later converted back to Islam. He has a number of academic degrees, none directly related to the study of historical Christianity, but I don’t feel that is that important. I don’t have a degree in Christian history either, but I don’t think that disqualifies me from writing about it. I’ve studied a lot of the early Christian sources as well as non-Christian sources from the early New Testament Church, as did Aslan apparently.

The purpose of this multi-installment review, then, is to review Aslan’s books on its merits. Putting the author aside, I want to look at what he writes in the book about Jesus and the early New Testament Church. There will be additional installments of this review as I finish sections of the book. Aslan states that “scholars tend to see the Jesus they want to see,” and I think that in Aslan’s case this is very much true; he has seen what he wants to see.

The book begins with the “Author’s Note” that I mentioned above. There are a few interesting comments in this section. Aslan talks about the Jesus he knew in high school. He writes, “I was presented with a Jesus who was less ‘Lord and Savior’ than he was a best friend, someone with whom I could have a deep and personal relationship” (Aslan xviii). It appears that Aslan encountered evangelical Christianity, as also evidenced by the fact that he says he “found Jesus.” Lutheran Christians (as would Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox) would argue that Jesus is, in fact, Lord and Savior and that he found us. This puts the emphasis on what God has done for us through Christ, rather than on what we did or are doing.

Aslan also makes a distinction, found throughout the book, between “Jesus the Christ” and “Jesus of Nazareth.” He uses “Jesus the Christ” to denote the Jesus of faith; that is to say, the Jesus that Christians believe in. He uses “Jesus of Nazareth” to denote the Jesus of history; that is to say, the Jesus that historians feel they can prove. I find this a false distinction, because I believe that the Jesus that Christians believe in is the Jesus of history. God came in the flesh, was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, buried, and rose again on the third day. Even non-Christians of the time wrote that Christians believed this.

If Jesus did not do all these things, if what we believe about him is not historically accurate, then the Jesus we believe in is powerless to raise us from the dead. As Paul said in his letter to the church in Corinth, “… if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Don’t allow people to strip away the “historical Jesus” from “Jesus the Christ,” because in the end they will destroy your faith in “Jesus the Christ.” The entire testimony of the Gospels and of the early New Testament Church is that Jesus did the things that are written about him, most importantly dying and rising.

Aslan also repeats the common accusation that “the Bible is replete with the most blatant and obvious errors and contradictions” (Aslan xix). For a minute I thought I was reading one of Bart Ehrman’s books! I confess to never having read all of one of Ehrman’s books, but I have skimmed through them before. Ehrman contends that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors, and Aslan is here picking up the baton. Every time I have read about one of these supposed “errors and contradictions” I have found it to be due to a lack of understanding on the part of the reader. I’ll have to see what examples Aslan provides in his book.

Another charge that Aslan repeats is that the authors of the Gospels are unknown, although he concedes that Luke possibly wrote the Gospel of Luke as well as Acts. However, he says that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew, Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark, and John did not write the Gospel of John; he believes that they were written towards the end of the first century by people who did not know Jesus. This is another common accusation by some Biblical scholars. I get the impression, though, that they are all using themselves for mutual support, citing each other as references in a great wheel of circular thinking. In contrast, the early Church believed that the writers of the Gospels are the ones for whom the Gospels are named.

This is what Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons from 177 to 200 AD, had to say about the four Gospels:

“Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him. Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leant back on His breast, once more set forth the gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia” (Simms 91).

Aslan contents that the Gospels were not meant to be historical, but rather to tell us about “Jesus the Christ.” He believes that they are therefore not accurate historically and are “not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds recorded by people who knew him” (Aslan xxvi). He seems to contradict himself later, though, when he states that there was disagreement over Jesus, “even among those who claimed to walk with him, who shared his bread and ate with him, who heard his words and prayed with him” (Aslan xxviii). If the Gospels are not historical accounts written by Jesus’ contemporaries, then how can his contemporaries be said to disagree?

At any rate, the early New Testament Church understood the Gospels to be historically accurate. In particular, Luke, in the prologue of his Gospel, expressly states that he is writing “an orderly account” (Luke 1:1-4).

Luke, in fact, is a gentile Christian, writing in the manner of Greek historians. He is very concerned with history and when the events he narrates occurred. Of all the Gospel writers Luke is most concerned with times, because he is purposely writing a historical account. Matthew, Mark, and John organized their Gospel accounts thematically, but they are still historical accounts; the events related by Matthew, Mark, and John actually occurred. They are told, however, in an order that is not linear.

There are two ways of thinking about an event. One way is linearly, the way we tend to think. That is to say, event A happened, followed by event B, followed by event C, etc… The ancient Greeks and Romans thought this way and wrote histories that still appeal to us today. This is the type of written account that men like Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, and others wrote.

Another way of thinking, though, is thematically. The Jews and other Semitic peoples tended to think in this way. In this way of thinking, all the events that relate to a certain theme are gathered together and related in such a way that the central theme is continually emphasized. A written thematic account tends to be like a spiral, circling around the main theme. Thus, Matthew’s theme is how Jesus came in fulfillment of God’s promises given in the Old Testament. Mark’s theme is how Jesus came to usher in the in-breaking of God’s reign on earth through His Church. John’s theme is how Jesus is the Word made flesh, the true temple, the Lamb of God, and the one who brings the light of God. In fact, in Revelation we see this thematic way of writing as John orders his account of what he saw as a series of three sevenfold visions recounting the time from Christ’s ascension to his return.

Generally, Aslan is accurate in the rest of the historical details he provides. He attempts to add color to his historical account of first century “Palestine,” as he calls it, by writing about the types of sights, sounds, and smells a person experienced during that time. Aslan calls the area “Palestine,” but the Roman province of this name did not come into existence until the middle of the second century AD, after the Bar Kochba revolt by the Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina). The main events narrated in the New Testament occur in the Roman province of Judaea, with Galilee as a separate territory. ”Palestine” as a province was formed from the merger of these territories with the province of Syria, but this was after the close of the first century. Aslan himself concedes as much in the “Notes” section at the back of the book.

Aslan also mentions a Greek philosopher named Celsus who was a second century writer who mocked Christianity. Aslan’s point in mentioning Celsus is that the image of an “itinerant preacher wandering from village to village clamoring about the end of the world, a band of ragged followers trailing behind, was a common sight in Jesus’s time” and that Celsus, therefore, mocked this as a “caricature” (Aslan xxiii). This is not completely true. Celsus was directly mocking Christianity, not the penchant for the Jews in following “messiahs.” In fact, Celsus knew that Christians believed that Jesus died and rose from the dead and that they worshipped Jesus as God. It is precisely for these reasons that Celsus ridiculed Christians. Celsus even believed that Jesus did many great miracles, but that he did these through magic he had learnt while in Egypt (Simms 75). Later in his book, Aslan denigrates the idea that Jesus was taken into Egypt by his parents, believing it to be a fictional addition to his birth story.

Aslan believes that Matthew and Luke provide “two different and conflicting infancy narratives” of Jesus. Aslan doesn’t specifically state where he sees the conflict, but I can surmise what he means. Matthew talks about the Magi coming from the east, while Luke talks about the shepherds coming to visit Jesus. To many people these seem like conflicting accounts. However, Matthew mentions Jesus’ birth and then talks about a later period when the Magi came to visit him. Notice that when the Magi tell Herod when they first saw the star announcing Jesus’ birth, that Herod has all the baby boys in Bethlehem up to two years old killed. This means that Herod had reason to believe that Jesus might be two years old; Jesus was a toddler not an infant. Luke, however, records the night of Jesus’ birth in some detail; the shepherds came when Jesus was first born and saw him as an infant. Thus, Matthew and Luke are covering different events in Jesus’ life. If I told you that I used to go fishing in Hawaii with my brother and also that I used to go fishing in Virginia with my brother, I’m not lying. Both statements are true; I lived in Hawaii as a young child and then in Virginia as a slightly older child.

Aslan also dates Jesus’ birth to after the death of Herod the Great (4 BC) in contradiction to the Gospel accounts (Aslan 24). I’m not sure why he does this. Luke’s Gospel is fairly clear that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was alive and that his parents brought him up out of Egypt after Herod died.

Aslan talks about the revolt of the Jews in 66AD and their defeat by the Romans in 70AD. He calls the four intervening years “glorious.” These years were anything but “glorious;” the Romans had their legions besiege the city and fight the rebels. Aslan talks about the defeat of the Jews in 70AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as if the city was completely wiped out. There was a lot of destruction and looting for sure (the Arch of Titus in Rome depicts the victorious Roman soldiers carrying off the treasures of the temple), but the Jews were still allowed to live in the city. It wasn’t until the Bar Kochba revolt that the Jews were expelled and the city renamed Aelia Capitolina by the Romans (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt).

]]>http://aaronsimms.com/review-of-zealot-first-installment/feed/3St. Augustine’s Confessionshttp://aaronsimms.com/st-augustines-confessions/
http://aaronsimms.com/st-augustines-confessions/#commentsSun, 04 Aug 2013 23:21:18 +0000http://lutheranchronicles.com/?p=242I first read St. Augustine’s Confessions a number of years ago, and it had a profound impact on me (I’ll get to why in a moment). I recommend reading it. St. Augustine lived in the late fourth century AD and into the early fifth century (November 12, 354 to August 28, 430). He was born in Tagaste, a town in …

]]>I first read St. Augustine’s Confessions a number of years ago, and it had a profound impact on me (I’ll get to why in a moment). I recommend reading it.

St. Augustine lived in the late fourth century AD and into the early fifth century (November 12, 354 to August 28, 430). He was born in Tagaste, a town in the Roman province of Numidia. He is best known for serving as the Christian bishop of Hippo, also in North Africa. However, he was not always a bishop, nor was he always a Christian. His book Confessions tells his story of how he was brought to faith and became a Christian.

Augustine wrote this book in the form of an extended conversation with God (more of a monologue, really). It is basically Augustine’s life story, as told by him to God. He casts his life story, though, within the context of his struggle with God. Beginning with his birth, he recounts his whole life and how he has struggled to come to terms with who God is and what plans He has in store for him.

Augustine lived a very interesting life. His mother was a Christian, but his father was not. I expect that this is a similar situation for many in our own time. Augustine took after his father and did not become a Christian, to the anguish of his mother. Instead, he studied philosophy and then became a teacher of rhetoric.

He fell in with a group called the Manichees. This was a religion that had its origins in the East and postulated the existence of a good god and an evil god locked in combat. The good God was the creator of the spiritual world, while the evil god was the creator of the material world. A person had to transcend the material world in order to reach spiritual enlightenment. It was basically a Gnostic type of religion, because it was based on securing some sort of secret “knowledge” in order to be “saved” from the material world by becoming more “spiritual.”

Augustine followed the teachings of the Manichees for a time, until he met one of their leaders. This leader was supposed to be the most pre-eminent and intelligent among the sect. However, Augustine was disappointed when he met him. He found that the man had none of the answers to Augustine’s questions and was simply a talker, spouting off vain sayings.

In connection with his disappointment with the Manichees, Augustine writes what I consider one of the best passages of the book. He says, “From now on I began to prefer the Catholic teaching. The Church demanded that certain things should be believed even though they could not be proved, for if they could be proved, not all men could understand the proof, and some could not be proved at all. I thought that the Church was entirely honest in this and far less pretentious than the Manichees, who laughed at people who took things on faith, made rash promises of scientific knowledge, and then put forward a whole system of preposterous inventions which they expected their followers to believed on trust because they could not be proved” (Confessions VI:5).

I think that every age has its Manichees who ridicule the faith of a Christian and then put forward a system of belief (their own faith) that they say is based on science and yet is based on blind trust.

Augustine says that he began to prefer the “Catholic teaching,” but he was not yet a Christian. It wasn’t until he went to Milan, Italy to each rhetoric that he began going to church. St. Ambrose was the bishop in Milan, and Augustine first started attending church in an effort to refute the things Ambrose was saying. As time went on, though, he found himself being drawn into the faith.

He struggled with this faith, partly because he felt that, as a Christian, he could no longer teach rhetoric. One day, while in a particular fit of agony, he went into the garden area behind the house in which he was staying. While sitting in the garden in the midst of his internal struggles, he heard a voice singing, “Take it and read, take it and read.” He couldn’t remember any children’s game where this phrase would be used. So, he picked up the book of Paul’s epistles that he had been reading. He opened it again and read the first passage that he saw. It was from Romans 13:13-14; Augustine quoted part of these verses as follows, “Not in reveling and drunkenness, not in lust and wantonness, not in quarrels and rivalries. Rather, arm yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ; spend no more thought on nature and nature’s appetites” (Confessions VIII:12).

Augustine took this to heart as a sign that he should abandon his former ways. His internal torment was now gone and he felt that God had shown him the way. Augustine told his mother of his new-found conviction in the Christian faith, and she was overjoyed, believing it to be an answer to her lifetime of prayer for Augustine’s soul.

The rest, as they say, is history. Augustine was catechized and baptized and eventually became bishop of Hippo. He began life as a pagan, believing in the lies told by those who varnished their myths with science. He died as a Christian, believing in the eternal truth as revealed by God through Jesus Christ. His Confessions tells the story how the one man became the other.

This then, is the reason that this book had such a profound impact on me. Augustine’s story is the story of many of our lives. The particular names and places may be different, and yet we are all united in the fact that we cannot escape God, as Tolstoy famously said. We must come to terms with our existence and the existence of God. In attempting to do so, we seek meaning and understanding in life, and it is always helpful to see how others have engaged in this struggle. In reading St. Augustine’s Confessions, I’m sure that you’ll find a bit of yourself in the pages, as did I. It is truly timeless, applicable as much today as it was in Augustine’s day.